Combat system

[Suhiira]

The issue is, there can be a LOT of shooting in Cyberpunk. In the PnP, this probably won't happen more than once or twice a session unless you like dying. In the CRPG, it will be a primary method of resolving violent conflict.

Why is this an issue? Combat will be designed around the system that's being used; if it's more like an RPG (rather than a shooter), then that's how it will be designed too.

Not necessarily.
It's not terribly uncommon to tack shooter style combat on an RPG (see Fallout and Elder Scrolls).

Since the vast majority of players will play a shooter style game once (maybe twice) certain unnamed publishers really prefer shooter game mechanics because they can sell more new games.
How can they milk the cash cow if players replay the same game over-an-over instead of buying a new game?

 

[Sardukhar]

Not necessarily.
It's not terribly uncommon to tack shooter style combat on an RPG (see Fallout and Elder Scrolls).

Since the vast majority of players will play a shooter style game once (maybe twice) certain unnamed publishers really prefer shooter game mechanics because they can sell more new games.
How can they milk the cash cow if players replay the same game over-an-over instead of buying a new game?

Although I don't disagree, I'd point out turn-based and RTwP mechanics are just as prey to abuse - that's a function of publishers and developers, not game mechanics. I still have yet to finish X Com or D:OS, for example, and doubt I'll replay either.

I like shooter mechanics for shooting. Same as driving mechanics for driving.

That said, isn't Wasteland 2 a joy? Shooting and all? Makes me want to go back and play Shadowrun some more as well. Something so satisfying to firing off volleys from your team and watching the swarming enemy come apart in blood balloons.

 

[Suhiira]

Combat system

Although I don't disagree, I'd point out turn-based and RTwP mechanics are just as prey to abuse - that's a function of publishers and developers, not game mechanics. I still have yet to finish X Com or D:OS, for example, and doubt I'll replay either.

Don't recall saying anything about abuse, just observing that FPS games tend to be more of a cash cow then RPGs.
X Com's ending wasn't quite what I expected, but it was fitting.
I've barely started D:OS ... it's a game I'll play when I'm ortherwise bored since I don't care much for the loot system (totally random).

That said, isn't Wasteland 2 a joy? Shooting and all? Makes me want to go back and play Shadowrun some more as well. Something so satisfying to firing off volleys from your team and watching the swarming enemy come apart in blood balloons.

I JUST arrived at the Valley of the Titan and to this point I've used very little ammo. I have brawler/rifle, blunt/rifle, blunt/sniper, and edged/sniper on my main Rangers. Rose (who's been learning to use a rifle since I first got her and is now maxed out in it), Scotchmo (who's also learning rifle since he's always in the rear of the party and the damn shotgun tends to do more damage to me then them due to it's cone), and Pizepi (who's been learning pistol as a back-up to her energy weapon).
Since most of the NPCs tend to be even slower then my characters (in terms of initiative) they don't use much ammo even tho they don't have melee weapons skills.
Probably my biggest complaint about Wasteland 2 is the AI badguys ALWAYS have initiative over your Rangers.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Not necessarily.
It's not terribly uncommon to tack shooter style combat on an RPG (see Fallout and Elder Scrolls).

Yeah, it's not uncommon at all. Pretty much every cRPG outside the so called new "renaissance" (WL2, MMX:L, Blackguards, PoE, Shadowrun...) these days does it... and has for years.

Bethesda games in particular are awful for it because on the outside they have pure and simple FPS ("S" for Shooter or Slasher, respectively for either series) combat. I don't particularly care for TES so I won't comment on that, but with Fallout they manage to aim straight to the sweet (or sour, I should say) spot in the middle where the action is lousy for a shooter and weak for an RPG because both aspects as being nigh diametrically opposed try their best to override each other but aren't allowed to by the design; and as a result you have the sort of "frankenshooter" mess where the characters abilities (and thus also the progression) are left weak to keep the FPS gameplay running fluidly, but not so fluidly to completely trump the characters abilities. It's a really horrible "should I or should I not" design that's afraid to do anything through the potential strenghts of the system at hand. But then, they also aim to please everyone... even those not initially interested at all.

That's a pretty unrelated rant (again B)), but I like to press on that that sort of shit is not what I'd wish for the fate of CP2077.

 

[Calistarius]

It's not like you could blame Bethesda for really "changing" or "selling out" or what ever... They have always made games in this kind of perspectives, be it first or third person. Granted they have made different kinds of games through out the years... but a pretty big part of their games have basicly always been 1st or 3rd person, and somewhat/compleatly combat orientated with these perspectives as well. So the fact that Bethesda made Fallout 3 in the same way is basicly in no way shape or form a surprice. It's their bread and butter, it's what they have always done, and it's what most likaly has also been the reason they have been a successful company over the years. So calling it "tacking shooter style element on" to either Elder Scrolls or Fallout 3+NV, is a bit of a disservice to Bethesda... this has always been the style of their Elder Scrolls series, it's nothing new... it's not like they changed the formula over the years all that much. And if someone had made a Fallout mod for let's say Morrowind, it would basicly have played very simmilar to how Fallout 3 and NV playes right now.

Simmilarly, where Bethesda have lived and been successful on 1st or 3rd person action styled games... Bioware has mostly been successful with a more "traditional" cRPG style of games, with a top down and/or isometric view, and it has often also been team based to one degree or another. Yes they have gone away from that on a few occations (atleast the cRPG thing, like in Mass Effect for example, but the team/group thing is still there after all)... but most of their successes, and continued life in the past, comes from making cRPG styled games. Would most of the old Fallout fans (me included) have prefered maybe if Bioware had got their hands on the Fallout IP? Yes, that would have been a much closer match then Bethesda, atleast to how the old Fallout games where... it would not have been turnebased though. Would the game series has been as successful, as Bethesdas version, if Bioware had got their hands on it? Probably not... not back when FO3 was first released atleast. Could Bioware have survived on it though? Probably.

 

[Sardukhar]

I HAVE MODERATED HERE. Moved some stuff to the Fallout thread, other stuff to the Wasteland 2 thread. Why not? POweeeeeEEErrrrr!

 

[Suhiira]

The problem with a game having both 1st and 3rd person play is that to date no one has done it well.
There are tons of games out there with excellent 1st person play.
And a good number with very good 3rd person.
There's absolutely no technical reason a game can't do both well.

True some of the controls will have to change depending on point-of-view. And that's probably the biggest reason games that try to have both tend to screw both up, they try to use the same control scheme for both perspectives, particularly the combat controls. This is understandable as players would find the necessity to change to how they control their character as they swapped perspectives annoying at best.
But, 90% of players will use one perspective or the other 90% of the time so there's no reason the controls have to be the same for both. Just warn your players the controls are different between perspectives and suggest they select one or the other to play the game in (for the most part).

 

[Sardukhar]

The problem with a game having both 1st and 3rd person play is that to date no one has done it well..

Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight. And Sequels.

Damn I loved those. FP for shoot shoot and TPS for saber fights. So much fun.

 

[Suhiira]

Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight. And Sequels.

Damn I loved those. FP for shoot shoot and TPS for saber fights. So much fun.

OK, I stand corrected.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Rainbow 6 (albeit no one used TPV except to peer around corners),
Deus Ex: HR

I can't think of many reasons to use TPV except for cool screenshots

and H2H fights where gauging range tend to be very important

So I hope for both views

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'd say there's a 99.9% chance the combat will be some sort of FPS, most definitely NOT turn-based.

That's likely true, and a bit of a shame of course if you ask me. If it is an RPG a company is going to make, they should make it wholesale; governing all aspects of the game (not just some CYOA elements and few nods here and there for some utility activities), and not give certain features a pass because some people might not care for RPG's (in this particular case more RPG centric combat).

 

[Maelcom404]

Well, maybe CDPR prefer to turn the game in real time, RPG or not, just because it fits better the idea they have for the game (and also because "turn-based triple A RPG" don't sell, and they don't want to waste money and years of work just to please 5% of the crowd... business comes first).

CDPR aren't different from Activision.
Sure, they perfect their game better and make way better game, but the finality of it is "$", not that they're greedy, but if you want to keep releasing game and be able to pay the people working for you (even if it's in Poland), you have to sell a lot of game in order to create another one.
Even if people still buy turn based game, there aren't enought of them to spend millions over a few years project, it would be a waste of money, and that's not because "Only kids play games nowadays", but because our tech has evolved and give use possibilities that weren't even possible before, they want to be innovative, where the TB is more "classic", I'm sure they'll be able to find a way to use the stat during combat... because that's their job, and most important, Mike Pondsmith is behind them telling them "If I sold you the licence, it's to play the game I WANT TO PLAY based on the game I created", so if the final game sucks, it'll be as much Mike's as CDPR fault.

It seems they want to make a "step forward" in term of futuristic RPG, and I understand why they took RT over TB, it's more "action packed" (insert "go play COD" puns here... you're not previsible at all), and they can concentrate some deeper RPG element elsewhere, when usualy you just have a bunch of crappy dialogues and just some RPG fighting mechanics, in Cyberpunk, there are fights, but you don't earn anything from it, it's just pure survival (and you don't really need 13540 stats and skills to throw some kicks or aiming a gun and firing at something).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

They will of course make a game that best suits them and is, in their mind, the best fit for a Cyberpunk cRPG. I can only hope (and voice it here) that their ideal game isn't as far from mine as I'm afraid of it being, all things considered.

The being innovative part I wholeheartedly agree with. They should strive for that. And that's also precisely the reason I am hoping for more nonconventional approach for.... everything; combat included (there's nothing innovative about common 1st/3rd person shooting where a couple of stats have a minor effect - or no effect; and while one could say the same about TB combat, it's not really conventional or commonplace in this day and age, and furthermore, that's not really what I am asking for anymore anyway whilst still hoping for a nod of some sort towards that direction with the mechanics they'll end up using).

It is of course risky to try something... different from the mainstream, but things'll always remain the same if nobody ever does. One has to wonder when will people get tired of (in the case the current wave of action RPG's) being bombarded with games, that in all practical senses are the same (look at the most recent and upcoming titles... Risen 3, Witcher 3, Bound by Flame, Dark souls 2, Lords of the Fallen, Dragon Age 3, Mass Effect 4, Raven's Cry, Shadow of Mordor... did I miss any; and likely soon to be more).

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Booohooohoooo

Ze evil capitalists!

EDIT:

You know what would be innovative?

Oculus rift support! with support for control VR!

ENTIRELY destructible environments! (not I can blow up that door meaning I can set explosives at key points and kill a solo by levelling a building instead of going toe to toe with him)

A dynamic economy.

RPG of SCALE. Meaning you can play an accountant who has an army of 500 lvl 1 pawns and pwn that lvl 60 solo.

Now THAT would be INNOVATIVE. SUPER DUPER. DIFFERENT. FORWARD THINKING.

It would PROVIDE ADDED VALUE. (insert more corporate lingo here)

 

[Suhiira]

As I've said (many) times before, I just hope character skills have a significant effect on whatever combat system they adopt. If it's a purely player skill based system I'll be extremely disappointed.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Booohooohoooo

Ze evil capitalists!

Not really, no.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

My thoughts exactly!

Anyway:
Oculus Rift? innovative?
Control VR? Innovative?
Dynamic economy? Innovative?
Ability to recruit an army of peons? Innovative?
Fully destructible environment? Innovative?

Non Monsieur!
Revolutionary! Changes the tactics of combat completely!

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I got a better idea. An ungame. No combat, no gameplay, no narration. Nothing to worry about, and encourages for other activities away from the computer.

 

[Sardukhar]

At a certain point, we go from discussion to own-ego-stroking and sarcastic remarks.

Of course, I approve of this kind of narcissistic cruelty, but only if it's interspersed with actually constructive effort. And humour, I likes me some humour.

In short, if you know your position and you know the other guy's position and you don't have anything constructive and/or funny to say, don't say anything.

 

[Suhiira]

Yes Massa, I doo's wut ya tells me to Massa.